Omega et al v. Wells Fargo & Co.,

Filing 71

ORDER Imposing Monetary Sanctions. Sanctions due by March 16, 2012. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 2, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

FLORENCIO L. OMEGA, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 11-02621 JSW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER IMPOSING MONETARY
SANCTIONS

v.
WELLS FARGO & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

On November 9, 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiffs to

16

show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court issued

17

that order because Plaintiffs, for the second time in this case, failed to file a timely response to

18

motions filed by the Defendants. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their response to the

19

Order to Show Cause. The Court found Plaintiffs’ response insufficient. Accordingly, on

20

December 2, 2011, it issued a further order directing Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause why

21

sanctions in the amount of $500.00 should not be imposed for failing to comply with this

22

Court’s deadlines and to diligently prosecute this case.

23

The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ counsel’s responses and Defendant’s objections

24

thereto. (Docket Nos. 45-46, 49, 52.) Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that his failure to comply with

25

the Court’s deadlines was due to his overwhelming case load and was not intentional. In order

26

to validly impose a sanction, “the conduct in question must in fact be sanctionable under the

27

authority relied upon.” United States v. Stoneberger, 805 F.2d 1391, 1392 (9th Cir. 1986).

28

Under Northern District Local Rule 1-4, “[f]ailure by counsel ... to comply with any duly
promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized

1

sanction.” In this case, the Court issued the Order to Show Cause because counsel failed to

2

comply with the Court’s deadlines for filing opposition briefs to motions, which are governed

3

by Local Rule. The Court also noted that counsel had not been diligent in prosecuting the case,

4

which - in certain cases - can lead to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

5

The Court does not find Plaintiffs’ counsel’s response to be sufficient, especially in light

6

of materials submitted by Defendant. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY IMPOSES sanctions in

7

the amount of $500.00 for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this Court’s Order. Plaintiffs’

8

counsel shall pay these sanctions to the Clerk of the Court by no later than March 16, 2012, and

9

counsel shall not pass these costs along to Plaintiffs.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2